Chapter xx

., an Act was passed for further continuing the tolls on London Bridge until March the 25th, 1782, when the remainder of the lease was to be bought and the tolls finally to cease. All these particulars will be found in the ‘_Statutes at Large_,’ volumes vii., pages 728-738, 742; viii., page 210; x., pages 306, 307; and xi., pages 154, 155; there is also considerable information upon this subject, to be found in Malcolm’s ‘_Londinum Redivivum_,’ volume ii., pages 392-396, derived from authentic documents. From these authorities it appears that the amount of the prescriptive tolls of London Bridge, at Midsummer, 1763, produced £1785: 10_s._ 5_d._; in 1764, £1946: 4_s._ 1_d._; in 1765, £1846: 7_s._ 4_d._; in 1766, £1878: 16_s._ 6_d._; and in 1770, £2465: 14_s._ 3_d._; estimating, therefore, the average to be about £1864, and deducting from that sum the Rent, £735; Land Tax, £180: 12_s._ and the expenses of collecting, £150, the lessee’s clear annual income would be £798: 15_s._

“It was upon this calculation that the value of the remainder of his lease was ascertained, and the Act for continuing the tolls first devised; though on Wednesday, April, 24th, 1765, the Committee of City Lands let to Mr. Neale a lease of 21 years of the toll of carts and wheelage over London Bridge, for a fine of 2000 guineas, and the old rent of £735 _per annum_. See the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_’ for 1765, volume xxxv., page 197.

“Notwithstanding, however, these active proceedings for the improvement of this edifice, the parties in favour of, and against, a new building ran extremely high, as you may see in the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 4. That several interests were to be consulted in the alteration of London Bridge, is evident, and they are

## particularly shewn in the counter-petitions presented to Parliament

whilst the Bridge Bills were pending; as, one drawn up by the most ardent supporters of the new Bridge at Blackfriars; and another by the Rev. Edmund Gibson, Rector of St. Magnus and St. Margaret, for recompense in loss of tythes, &c. to the amount of £48: 6_s._ 2_d._, by taking down the houses. _Vide_ the ‘_Journals of the House of Commons_,’ volume xxvii., page 574; and the ‘_Continuation of Maitland’s History_,’ page 11; on page 7 of which authority it is also stated, that on the 12th of June, 1755, ‘the Common-Council allowed the Comptroller of the Bridge-House £410 _per annum_, in lieu of his customary bills, which were so much reduced by the loss that would accrue to the Bridge-House estate, in the repairing and improvement of London Bridge.’ But whilst many persons were too much interested even in the worst state of it, with all its inconvenient buildings, not to oppose their alteration, they were found to be almost equally dangerous both on the edifice and on the water. In the proceedings in Parliament concerning the alterations, Mr. Dance, the Architect, stated, that the piers were solid for ten feet above the sterlings, upon which were erected walls of three feet in thickness, forming cellars to the houses; and they having settled, the walls were much injured. In consequence, also, of the contracted passage between the houses upon the Bridge, the inhabitants experienced many inconveniences peculiar to their situation. Mr. Deputy James Hodges declared, that he ‘had frequently known it happen, that coals had been thrown through the windows of the houses, out of the barges going under the Bridge; and that, as he is informed, the reason is, that the candle-lights in the houses make it dangerous in the night-time to go through the locks. That people on the river have always a glimmering light by which they can distinguish objects, unless a very thick fog. That light leaves them just when they come to shoot the locks, as far as the shadows of the houses extend; and thereby they lose the possibility of discerning the passage between the sterlings.’ See Malcolm’s ‘_Londinum Redivivum_,’ volume ii., page 388, and the ‘_Journals of the House of Commons_.’ The improvement of the passage over London Bridge was, however, much accelerated by the passing of an Act in 1755, the 28th of George II., Chapter ix ., for taking away the ancient Market then held in High Street, Southwark, after Lady-day, 1756: and in